Bachmann

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

btw...just clicking on the SLATE article that Bryan posted...the title is "LET HIM DIE " in quotes but if you read the article...it's Wolf Blitzer who was moderating the debate who actually said "let him die", not any republican

seems like a pretty balanced article too

On reading the article I could see an attempt at balance, but, to me, it was very heavily slanted toward the mandate as a solution to medical care for the uninsured who can afford it. The three options the article presented for someone who could afford it but was uninsured and critically or terminally ill are (1) the mandate, (2) current policy of care to be paid for by the rest of us, and (3) letting him die. For option 2, current policy, the article cites A study (only one study) that says the cost shift amounts to $1,100 per family. It omits another study that found that 80% was actually covered by charities and that the cost shifted to the rest of us was about $80 per family, so the article's assertion that charities could not substantially contribute to the cost is questionable. Option 3, let him die takes the responsibility of the uninsured out of the equation. In typical progressive thinking, society has to solve his problem, not the individual. But there is an option 4. Let the uninsured individual take responsibility for the cost of saving his life. Let him sell assets, take loans, do whatever it costs to pay for it, if saving his life is worth it to him, even if it would mean bakruptcy. This option would be an incentive for those who can afford it to buy insurance. The same would apply to any other expensive thing he thought worth buying. And yes, charities could help those who absolutely are not capable. And yes, various State programs could assist the truly needy. And yes, the Constitution would be spared the further destruction. And the principle of individual freedom from all-powerful government would be a little more preserved.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

On reading the article I could see an attempt at balance, but, to me, it was very heavily slanted toward the mandate as a solution to medical care for the uninsured who can afford it.

I saw an article that took a quote from the moderator(obnoxious by the way) and the supposed reaction of a few in the audience having no idea who they may have been and attempted to use that quote and reaction to characterize the sentiment and stance of the candidates

and further.....

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have to say, I’ve never witnessed such a crackle of enthusiasm for executing people as I heard at the Reagan Library debate last week. I recalled it last night when I heard the clap of applause when Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance.


BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.

There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.


mission accomplished however

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?



Lordy...Lordy

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?



Lordy...Lordy

So Scott, was that exactly my quote or did you selectively edit it? You also seemed to have edited out the following which implies that there was no audience response (but left in the other times where the audience responded) (Quoted from ABC news):

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”

Here is my quote - Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

So when I posted the statement, I qualified it by saying "Don't know, but" - which means I was unsure of the exact statement. It turns that it did happen - with the mod. saying "let him die?" and some in the audience saying "Yeah" instead of the cheering that I said. So the bottom line is that you have some in the audience who were happy w/the statement "let him die".

Scott, you sometimes remind me of a gnat.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Here is my quote - Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

I really shouldn't get involved in this . . . discussion? . . . which is off topic and has turned, as johnnyD said, into pooh, pooh, but some . . . . gnat like? . . . compulsion makes me. So, besides your admittedly erroneous reflections on the "rally," what is the point of "where have all the compassionate cons. gone?" does the few who said "yeah" mean all the compassionate cons. are gone?

So when I posted the statement, I qualified it by saying "Don't know, but" true - which means I was unsure of the exact statement. True. It turns that it did happen No, someone did not shout "let him die" and the whole crowd did not start to cheer - with the mod. saying "let him die?" true and some in the audience saying "Yeah" instead of the cheering that I said. True So the bottom line is that you have some in the audience who were happy w/the statement "let him die".
How do you know they were "happy" with the "let him die?" There could be many reasons and expanded explanations for that reaction, which would not fit into an interjection by an audience member. It could be, among others, a tough love stance saying, buddy take care of yourself, it is not society's responsibility to nurse you through every phase of your existence and to pay for your poor choices. And if you have chosen a path of non-involvement in your own existence, it is not society's duty to empower you to stay on that path.

Scott, you sometimes remind me of a gnat.

Careful, Paul, there are mirrors.

I apologize to everybody else for contributing to the pooh, pooh. Apparently, however, no-one other than Scottw seems to care about the actual topic of the thread.

[PaulS]

How do you know they were "happy" with the "let him die?They certainly were agreeable with the idea of letting him die with the "yeah" statement There could be many reasons and expanded explanations for that reaction, which would not fit into an interjection by an audience member. It could be, among others, a tough love stance saying, buddy take care of yourself, it is not society's responsibility to nurse you through every phase of your existence and to pay for your poor choicesI agree that could have been the intent. So b/c of "tough love", they were willing to let him die. Bottom line, some in the audience were willing to let him die. And if you have chosen a path of non-involvement in your own existence, it is not society's duty to empower you to stay on that path

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It could be, among others, a tough love stance saying, buddy take care of yourself, it is not society's responsibility to nurse you through every phase of your existence and to pay for your poor choicesI agree that could have been the intent. So b/c of "tough love", they were willing to let him die. Bottom line, some in the audience were willing to let him die. And if you have chosen a path of non-involvement in your own existence, it is not society's duty to empower you to stay on that path

They might have been(don't know about were) willing to let him make the choice. Do you believe in choice? Do you believe in the choice to kill unborn or partially born babies? Do you believe in the choice of an a adult to terminate his life? Must society oppose some choices but enforce others? And if good samaritans are willing to save his life in spite of himself should he or anyone else be forced to pay for it. And is it the fedgov's responsibility to be a good samaritan, and does a good samaritan force anybody to do anything? I know you're a very moral person, but does your morality extend to force rather than personal compassion and personal responsibility to aid and comfort? And do you really believe that the great number of uninsureds would choose to die rather than do what it takes to live? There are a lot of questions and posibilities here, but among those destructive to society one is to change the basis of that society to suit the whims and irresponsibilities of those who do not practice the tenets of that society. Our foundation, the Constitution (here I go again), is meant to garantee INDIVIDUAL liberty and responsibility and is meant to preclude the central gvt. from assuming that responsibility because the assumption of that responsibility gives power to those who hold it. The Constitution is meant to give power to the people over power of the government. If your morality destroys that foundation it will not only be more destructive to a free society than letting an individual perish due to his own irresponsibility, but it will make it that much more difficult for the society to afford the care of those who need it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So Scott, was that exactly my quote or did you selectively edit it?

Scott, you sometimes remind me of a gnat.

your exact quote.....#31

Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

#55 my "selectively edited version" of your quote....I did such a fine job that you can hardly tell that I was engaged in mischief huh

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

your exact quote.....#31

Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

#55 my "selectively edited version" of your quote....I did such a fine job that you can hardly tell that I was engaged in mischief huh

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheeringLordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

Your right and I'm sorry. I posted my quote and what you said. Obviously the same so I was prob. in a hurry and miss read it.

However, can you pls. post the link to what you quoted. As I said in that post, the article seems to have the statement missing where some in the audience yelled "yeah" - which was the whole point of the discussion. I'd like to read the whole thing. Thanks

Scott - was this where you got the quote?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-someone-witho

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

some in the audience yelled "yeah" - which was the whole point of the discussion.

it IS the point isn't it?.....you don't know who or why or any of the other "facts" involved

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

it IS the point isn't it?.....you don't know who or why or any of the other "facts" involved

I just listened to it and according to it, when Paul was asked the question, people in the audience said "yeah". Maybe they were liberals?

Interesting in that the transcript from that site (and what you posted) didn't have the "yeah" but did include when people applauded at other times. I wonder how they could have missed the "yeah" and why it wasn't included? It did cut out very quickly after the "yeah". I wonder what else happened after that?